community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
The Disunity of Anonymity
by Matthew Siegler
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 11:20 AM
msiegler@ureach.com (email address validated)
Anonymous text postings could discredit our discourse (and other musings.)
Now that the free world is aware of indymedia we can expect a relentless barrage of missives, untruths, and fabrications from the unnamed. I am afraid that without multiple photographic accounts, any information anonymously presented as "fact" can (and should) be regarded with skepticism. We can be sure that many will take them to be hearsay or fact depending on the observer's goals. I live in Pittsburgh - Ward 14, and I observed and participated in the unpermitted walk down Braddock, and dispersed when I was informed by a POG member that it was becoming "unadvisable" to continue participate. I want to thank POG for being aware of the situation and having made our point, knowing when to call it a day. I am presently conflicted with the "diversity of tactics" issue that was well addressed by one speaker during the rally. Each individual should know where the line ought to be drawn according to their own limits. But some actions threaten constructive action. Vandalism, abuse, and general mayhen are useless in the greater good. On a parallel note, I am certain that some are and will continue to take advantage of a protest for selfish aims. To those people I ask to go find another venue to and a willing participant to vent your frustrations. In the meantime, we all will need to consider how to deal with this (and we must.) How have peace marshalls been effective in larger movements? Finally, I would suggest a reading of the ACLU guide to dealing with police in everyday situations. Don't be discouraged
musings on the nature of "Independent Media."
by Don
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 11:48 AM
Was that Edgewood story a spoof or an actual account? It's hard to tell. That's the problem with turning the creation of media over to the untrained public. Any loonie can post any kind of shit and there is really no reliable way to assess the validity of a story. How much of it is lies? How much of it is true? Whos' propaganda is it? Who knows? Even trained journalists with the best of intentions can "miss" things, or misreport a story. Turning media creation over to the "at large public" is fraught with difficulty. With this method, the search for an objective accounting of an event becomes a mish-mash of emotions, opinion, spin and subterfuge. Though the mainstream media is not as discerning as we would like, they do have standards they use to try and nail down accurate accounts of events. Their facts can be checked, research can be done, dissenting opinions can be righteously formed because information can be verified or disputed. "Independent Media" has no such standards, in fact it has no rules at all, save for the caprice of the "editors" and the "consensus" of the viewers--both of which are wholly inadequate when it comes to establishing credibility. A thinking person should never rely on mainstream media sources as a faultless search for true accounts, but it is a good place to start. "Independent Media" outlets tend to be little more than an online support group for a small group of folks who feel more comfortable with people who share their values. There is no doubt that some good work is done on sites such as these, but the lack of meaningful standards that establish credibility prevents "Independent Media" from being a reliable source for information.
Musings on media and diversity of tactics
by wheatpaster
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 12:12 PM
Notice the police spokespersons claimed "rocks and batteries were thrown at police" on 3/30/03, which supposedly justified the pepperspray being used. If you were there, you know this is a total fabrication.
Please understand everyone: most every report from police spokespersons after these marches have also been highly fabricated. NO PROPERTY HAS BEEN DAMAGED aside from when several people attempted to stop an automobile from continuing its path of acceleration into marchers on 3/20/03.
Just so that everyone reading this is clear on DIVERSITY OF TACTICS, here is an explanation which POG and TMC have organized demonstrations around:
-The action framework should be as diverse as possible, and allow people to participate in a variety of events depending on health, mobility, and risk.
-The same resources are made available to those utilizing more militant tactics. This includes groups openly advertising other actions occurring, so each participant can make and honest and informed decision about the actions in which they participate.
-That all groups be in communication about their general plans to ensure that those utilizing less risky actions are not put at risk by the actions of others.
-That various actions be tied as close together as is practical and possible. Sometimes this means an un-permitted march will directly follow a permitted rally, and sometimes it means there will be different actions happening simultaneously.
-That organizing groups be completely open about the risk levels of the actions being planned.
-That each group make every effort possible without compromising their own effectiveness to refrain from criticizing the actions of others in the corporate media (even if this means making no comment). While dialogue and discussion is critical, we must never allow this to take place through the skewed prism of the corporate media.
-That organizers permit groups to use tactics that do not put other actions at risk. An example of this would be the anti-war march on March 2nd where POG ended the march and advised people to disperse because of the possibility of arrest, but did not attempt to interfere with the large number of people who wished to keep marching.
-That at a single event like a march based on DOT, people will not interfere with other participants taking non-violent direct action.
-Too many problems arise when we try to fit a diverse movement into a one size fits all tactical box. We are strongest when we allow everyone the space to express themselves in ways they feel are most effective. We feel DOT cannot be abandoned as the framework with which large events, days of action, and convergences are organized. To do so will lead to an ever increasing fracturing of the movement and mutual recrimination between perspectives.
They can't stop us from being peacemongers!
standards, yeah
by sharpie
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 1:24 PM
Yes, we're told the corporate media has journalistic standards and fact-checkers. In the case of recent demonstrations, however, they have been unable to move fast enough to observe police oppression in action, and they have prioritized police accounts over victim/eyewitness accounts. In a situation where police and victims/eyewitnesses are ideologically and tactically opposed, favoring one side is unethical, a breach of journalistic integrity. Further, favoring the official story over clear photographs and video footage is a moral breach: to do so is deliberately obscuring the truth to advance a political end. The corporate media, to which "independent media" is one alternative, have largely abandoned journalistic standards, and have rejected the very concept of "fact" in the pursuit of ratings and access. It is a bitter pill to swallow, that the press, the so-called "Fourth Estate," is the purveyor of official lies and omissions, that there is nowhere to turn for "the real story." In defense of Independent Media Centers: the authors and photographers who post to this site, while they may be biased by their proximity to an event or experience, these people are struggling for the truth. The essence of journalism -- that which the major networks and papers have erased from their balance sheet -- the desire to uncover "the truth" lives here at IndyMedia.
.
by .
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 1:27 PM
the desire to uncover "the truth" lives here at IndyMedia
I think that should read "The desire to push the leftist agenda at any cost lives here at IndyMedia." Seriously, if one of the dozens of eyewitnesses who saw kids keying cars, throwing batteries, or assaulting women came forward with a videotape showing it, would you still scream it didn't happen? Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I saw it, it happened.
Batteries and rocks
by Mike
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 1:49 PM
If demonstrators were throwing rocks and batteries at police officers, you can be damn sure there would have been a helluva lot more than three arrests, and alot more police violence. The white-shirt from Swissvale who made that ridiculous statement is used to breaking the arms of 14 year old shoplifters whose actions aren't videotaped. The "look what you made me do" defense probably won't help them this time.
Media Reports
by Isaac Ludwig
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 2:15 PM
ludwigih@westminster.edu
First on the subject of professional reporting: most reports published here are personal accounts and photographs that people can come to their own conclusions based upon. As for myself I am a trained journalist, and I�m sure there are others like myself who also are. Next year I will graduate from Westminster College with a BA in Public Relations and minors in Broadcast Communications and Visual Arts. I have been a reporter for our college newspaper for 2 years, been on our TV crew and have had a radio show for 3 years. I've also done in internship with Clear Channel Pittsburgh (yes, the pro-war supporters themselves), numerous reporter shadowing and have very valid contacts in the "corporate media." I for one, am a trained journalist, have various press credentials, passes, etc., and I'm sure others who post here also have some journalistic training.
As for what we are taught, and what "real journalism" actually is: we are taught that to tell your story well you should have other people tell the story through quotes. I believe that this venue simply cuts the middleman out. We are taught that if you want to say something, just have someone else say it... does that mean it has to be true... well it's supposed to, but does anyone ever really read those article corrections? So, while we can argue back and fourth about the validity of this venue as a news source we will continue to inform the public with actual accounts and continue to be cited in court cases as a legitimate news source.
As for the police's accusations published in both the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and the Tribune Review of protesters throwing rocks and batteries, all I can tell you is that I directly witnessed the arrests, and did not see any throwing of projectiles. What I did see was documented by our camera's, in our first hand accounts, and was shown on TV (Fox 53 showed the altercation and even though they used biased language the actual video you saw gave an accurate portrayal of the events). What I did see what a police officer spraying mace at people on the sidewalk after they complied with their orders , a police officer spraying mace at someone who was already on the ground, and police trying to calm down their fellow hot headed officers. So, while the debate about how valid actual accounts may go on indefinitely, people will still use independent sources in a variety of ways and citing them as credible sources.
.
by .
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 2:20 PM
It should be noted that the battery/rock throwing was taking place further back in the march, a good bit away from where the arrests took place. The pictures I've seen clearly show the officer spraying people who were still on the street after at least 3 warnings (watch the video on this site) and the people on the sidewalk getting sprayed were trying to stop the arrest (something which is illegal and they should have been hauled in for.)
Honestly I'm surprised the cops were as calm as they were.
it should be noted
by jwg
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 3:28 PM
that if you throw batteries or rocks at cops, they will charge at you and arrest you, and most likely draw their weapons.
The DO NOT however respond to having rocks hurled at them bu arresting people several yards away from the incident.
Face it, the rock throwing did not happen, anywhere. It was the lage angry officer who attacked the crowd that said that people were throwing things, he is the one who made that initial claim. He didn't say they were throwing things several yards away from me and I attacked those nearest.
His claim was that the people he went after threw the projectiles at him.
So you are wrong in this case, no officer was ever assaulted or in danger of being assaulted.
Indymedia, perspective, and real news
by Aly
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 3:33 PM
I would just like to comment that I think indymedia is a great news site because it is a mish-mash of voices. After all, everything is skewed by perspective in the real world, and anything can be twisted to fit a defined point-of-view or propaganda-campaign. The thing that is different with indymedia is the fact that there are no corporate execs. looking over our shoulders, judging how things should be told. Here, we each tell what we want to tell, how we want to tell it. Then we read articles/postings/replies from a multitude of voices and perspectives, and decide what we each, individually believe are the most likely truths. After all, they are all just based on personal perspectives and personal thoughts, ideas, and even biases. This is what the real world is all about people! Don't let other people tell you what to think and how to think it, listen to ALL the voices around you, think about what you hear and how you hear it, look at the world as you see it, and and put it all together to make up your OWN mind.
!!!!
by Evan N
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 5:36 PM
I agree with the man who posted the original message in this thread - very well spoken.
To whoever threw rocks/batteries if that even really happened:
you disgust me
Also: people wh oare bitching about the batteries and rocks and i read somewhere up there assaulting women - You can't charge indymedia or the entire anti war movement wit hthat kind of crap - no one here condones that, so why are you trying to tell us that stuff is bad when we agree with you. What we dont agree with is the way the police responded
oh god Evan.
by why?
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 5:43 PM
Evan, what is wrong with you? I can't believe you even bother to imply that those incidents might have happened. Are you kidding? Don't comment about stuff you didn't even attend.
dude
by Evan N
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 7:40 PM
thats why i said
"if that even really happened"
because im NOT saying that they did, but IFFFFthey DID happen thats horrible, what kind of idiots would do such a thing
rocks
by S
Monday, Mar. 31, 2003 at 7:40 PM
It's interesting that those of us who were there (i went all over the march, front and back) did not witness any of the alleged rock throwing or throwing of batteries. the only assult of women i witnessed was that of the police assaulting a female protester.
How is it that nobody that i know that attended the march can confirm you reports of rock throwing. I guess all of us are brainwashed by the subliminal messages at Indymedia.
One more thing...
The people un-arresting the protesters only started to unarrest them after the police had attacked. Note that they attacked and then tried to arrest people. I can also note that the police gave us very little time to get on the side walk. For that amount of people to get on that small of a sidewalk we should have been givin more time. especially since there was a large banner being carried. The police were aggressive from the start. When we got to the point when they told us to get on the sidewalk, we were immediatly shoved to get there.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)